Message-Id:
Subject: Re: No Subject
In-Reply-To: <7367c66b.36c83a8a@aol.com> from "Focalp@aol.com" at "Feb 15, 99 10:17:30 am"
To: Focalp@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:19:47 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: kmcvay
Content-Length: 5879
Status: O
You wrote:
> Dear Mr McVay
>
> I understand that you stated on CNN last night words to the following effect:
>
> Then there's British author David Irving, a man who has lied under oath in
> Great Britain, and lied under oath in Canada, and, wonder of wonders,
> contradicted himself with his Zundel testimony...
>
> Since it is possible you are the victim of a misunderstanding, would you
> kindly identify to me precisely on what occasions you maintain I "lied under
> oath." These are very serious and cowardly allegations indeed, particularly
> where the victim has no opportunity of defending himself.
>From the Canadian Adjudicator's Report:
"When viewed as a whole this evidence can lead to only one conclusion;
the event was a total fabrication and never took place. I can only
speculate that you and your supporters concocted your
story to garner further publicity and prolong your stay in Canada,
both of which you have done with some success."
I think that is clear enough. In the event it was not, I find it
repeated by the Australian Federal Court during the first judgment:
"Between 2 November and 13 November 1992 an immigration hearing took
place at Niagara Falls before Immigration Adjudicator Mr. Kenneth Thompson.
Mr. Irving gave sworn evidence and adduced evidence from others at that
hearing concerning his departure from Canada on the evening of Friday 30
October 1992. Mr. Thompson, in his findings, said that he did not believe Mr.
Irving and gave written reasons for that finding. Mr. Thompson's
conclusions included the following:
"In [??] your evidence as a whole, you have been unable to
persuade me that you did leave Canada on October 30, 1992. I have a
great deal of difficulty accepting your evidence. It did [??] not have
the ring of truth to it, but observing you and listening to your testimony, I
could not help but get the impression that you were at times re-citing [sic]
a rehearsed script. I found you to [sic] a difficult witness who was
often confrontational with the Case presenting officer when he asked you
straightforward questions.
When viewed as a whole this evidence can lead to only one
conclusion; the event was a total fabrication and never took place."
...and...
"In my view those submissions overlooked the critical issue. That
issue is whether Adjudicator Thompson's adverse findings in respect of
Mr. Irving were irrelevant considerations under Regulation 2(1) on the
question of good character. The adverse findings were, in essence,
that Mr. Irving's account of his short visit to the United States was
a total fabrication and never took place i.e. that Mr. Irving had lied
on oath to the Immigration Adjudicator."
I trust you have advised the Justices of the "very serious and
cowardly allegations" and filed suit against them, right, Mr. Irving?
I also find the following text, which is quite interesting, since it
addresses the issue of your sworn affidavit in England:
"On 11 February 1994 in the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench
Division) in London, Brooke J. found that Mr. Irving was in contempt
of court by failing to comply with an order of Morison J. For that contempt
Brooke J. ordered Mr. Irving to be commited [sic] to prison for a period
of three months. On 21 February 1994 Mitchell H. heard an application
on Mr. Irving's behalf to purge his contempt and to obtain a discharge
of the order made on 11 February 1994 committing him to prison. Mitchell
J's written reasons in respect of that application included the
following paragraph:
"I have not found this an easy decision because I have made it clear
more than once during the course of today - and I adhere to the
conclusions that I have been forming and expressing - that I am afraid
I do not accept the explanations appearing in his affidavit, that is to
say, his explanation to me that he had not the faintest idea that any of
this was going on - that includes that he had not the faintest idea that
the German judgment was even registered in this country; I am afraid I do
not accept that for one moment."
I trust you have brought suit against Mitchell, yes?
In the appeal judgments, we find Davies saying: "In my opinion, all
these matters, the offences against the laws, the conviction, the
contempt of court, the orders for deportation and the findings of lack of
veracity, were matters which the Minister was entitled to take into
account in his assessment whether or not Mr Irving was a person of
"good character". No matter taken into account by the Minister was
irrelevant to his task."
"Lack of veracity," Mr. Irving. Have you filed against Davies yet?
Then there is this comment from Nicolson, in his appeal judgment:
"The other matters before the respondent and considered by Carr J did
not derive their character from criminality arising from the exercise
of free speech. The findings of Immigration Adjudicator Thompson
were that the appellant lied on oath. A deportation order from
Canada was made against him. He was found in contempt of court in
the High Court of Justice in London and imprisoned. Later he was found
to be a person who deliberately gave false evidence."
By all means, Mr. Irving, file a libel suit. I look forward to
deposing these Federal Court Justices and Adjudicator Thompson, and,
of course, Mitchell. If nothing else, it should produce marvellous
transcripts for the web.
By the way, Mr. Irving, although it really isn't relevant, comments
you make about my funding on your home page are outright lies. I,
without the slightest degree of difficulty, can prove, beyond even a
shadow of doubt, that I have never received a cent from the ADL, and
that the ADL has never (and will never) fund my work. I find it
amusing that you make yourself such an easy target.
Have a nice day, Mr. Irving, and save your threats for someone else.
Ken McVay

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.